Hi!
Ping.
On 2021-09-22T13:03:46+0200, I wrote:
> On 2021-09-19T11:35:00-0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> A couple of goacc tests do not have unique names.
>
> Thanks for fixing this up, and sorry, largely my "fault", I suppose. ;-|
>
>> This causes problems
>> for the test comparison script when one of the test passes and the other
>> fails -- in this scenario the test comparison script claims there is a
>> regression.
>
> So I understand correctly that this is a problem not just for actual
> mixed PASS vs. FAIL (which we'd like you to report anyway!) that appear
> for the same line, but also for mixed PASS vs. XFAIL? (Because, the
> latter appears to be what you're addressing with your commit here.)
>
>> This slipped through for a while because I had turned off x86_64 testing
>> (others test it regularly and I was revamping the tester's hardware
>> requirements). Now that I've acquired more x86_64 resources and turned
>> on native x86 testing again, it's been flagged.
>
> (I don't follow that argument -- these test cases should be all generic?
> Anyway, not important, I guess.)
>
>> This patch just adds a numeric suffix to the TODO string to disambiguate
>> them.
>
> So, instead of doing this manually (always error-prone!), like you've...
>
>> Committed to the trunk,
>
>> commit f75b237254f32d5be32c9d9610983b777abea633
>> Author: Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun Sep 19 13:31:32 2021 -0400
>>
>> [committed] Make test names unique for a couple of goacc tests
>
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90
>> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ contains
>> !$acc atomic write ! ... to force 'TREE_ADDRESSABLE'.
>> y = a
>> !$acc end parallel
>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper
>> OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* }
>> l_compute$c_compute }
>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper
>> OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* }
>> l_compute$c_compute }
>> - ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper
>> OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO" { xfail *-*-* }
>> l_compute$c_compute }
>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'i' in 'private' clause potentially has improper
>> OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO2" { xfail *-*-* }
>> l_compute$c_compute }
>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'j' in 'private' clause potentially has improper
>> OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO3" { xfail *-*-* }
>> l_compute$c_compute }
>> + ! { dg-note {variable 'a' in 'private' clause potentially has improper
>> OpenACC privatization level: 'parm_decl'} "TODO4" { xfail *-*-* }
>> l_compute$c_compute }
>
> ... etc. (also similarly in a handful of earlier commits, if I remember
> correctly), why don't we do that programmatically, like in the attached
> "Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu directives
> refer to the same line", once and for all? OK to push after proper
> testing?
Attached again, for easy reference.
I figure it may help if I showed an example of how this changes things;
for the test case cited above (word-diff):
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 40+}
(test for warnings, line 39)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 41+}
(test for warnings, line 22)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 42+}
(test for warnings, line 39)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 43+}
(test for warnings, line 22)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 44+}
(test for warnings, line 39)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 45+}
(test for warnings, line 22)
XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO2 {+at line
50+} (test for warnings, line 29)
XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO3 {+at line
51+} (test for warnings, line 29)
XFAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO4 {+at line
52+} (test for warnings, line 29)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O TODO {+at line
53+} (test for warnings, line 29)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O {+at line 54+}
(test for warnings, line 29)
PASS: gfortran.dg/goacc/privatization-1-compute.f90 -O (test for excess
errors)
Given that we now amend the 'comment' by 'at line $useline"', and given
that only ever one DejaGnu directive may appear on one source line, all
these output lines now must be unique. (If we wanted to, we again could
's%TODO[0-9]+%TODO%', reverting your change cited above.)
Grüße
Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht
München, HRB 106955
>From 6e3ae5784888be70056ccc3bb7d379fa8e7f6fc0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:42:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make sure that we get unique test names if several DejaGnu
directives refer to the same line
gcc/testsuite/
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (process-message): Make sure that we get unique
test names.
---
gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
index 7edd070d71d..78a6c3651ef 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
@@ -1191,8 +1191,18 @@ proc process-message { msgproc msgprefix dgargs } {
upvar dg-messages dg-messages
if { [llength $dgargs] == 5 } {
- set num [get-absolute-line [lindex $dgargs 0] [lindex $dgargs 4]]
- set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $num]
+ set useline [lindex $dgargs 0]
+
+ # Resolve absolute line number.
+ set line [get-absolute-line $useline [lindex $dgargs 4]]
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 4 4 $line]
+
+ if { $line != $useline } {
+ # Make sure that we get unique test names if different USELINEs
+ # refer to the same LINE.
+ set comment "[lindex $dgargs 2] at line $useline"
+ set dgargs [lreplace $dgargs 2 2 $comment]
+ }
}
# Process the dg- directive, including adding the regular expression
--
2.33.0
